In the court of Mr. Kunal Sharan, Session Judge South District, Saket Court,Delhi A ...Prosecution ‘Versus, B .. Defence Facts of c: + A, aresident of Jamia Nagar, Delhi, got married to B in 2019, making B her second husband after a previous divorce. When A became pregnant with their child in October 2022, B had to travel to Chennai for work, leaving A alone during her pregnancy. + Feeling vulnerable, A welcomed the support offered by C, a distant relative. C stayed with A and even accompanied her to doctor appointments during her pregnancy, earning A's trust. . In July 2023, when A went into labor, C took her to a hospital. However, instead of staying at the initial hospital due to document issues, C took her to another hospital in Jamia Nagar. A underwent surgery due to delivery complications, with C informing her she gave birth to a baby boy. However, C prevented A from seeing the child in person, showing only photographs. + When A persisted in wanting to see her child, C claimed the baby had died after birth and had already been buried. Suspecting foul play, A reported the incident to the police, accusing C of kidnapping and selling her child. + Police conducted an investigation, searching C's relative's home where they found the baby boy. Statements were taken from C's relative, her husband, and neighbors. Subsequently, police charged C under kidnapping and trafficking sections of the Indian Penal Code. + This case underscores the vulnerability of individuals during times of need and the importance of trust. It's a distressing situation where a relative, who was supposed to offer support, is accused of such heinous acts, leading to legal repercussions.PROSECUTION’s witness examination In the court proceedings, the prosecution presented several witnesses to support their case, Here's a summary of their testimonies: + PW-1 (D) testified that C brought the child to them on the evening of. 08/07/23, claiming the child belonged to her relatives. C requested them to care for the child until her relatives were discharged from the hospital. PW-1 also mentioned receiving Rs. 5000 for the child's care. + PW-2 (E) corroborated PW-l's account, stating that when he returned home from work that night, PW-1 informed him about the child's arrival, PW-1 mentioned that C intended to take back the child once her relative was discharged from the hospital. + PW-3 (F), a neighbor of PW-1 and PW-2, testified that on the moming of 09/07/23, she heard the baby crying. When she asked PW-1 about it, PW-1 explained that the child belonged to her hospitalized relative, and she was caring for the child until the mother's discharge. + PW-4 (ASI Ganga Prasad) stated that initially, the accused (C) was hesitant to disclose the child's whereabouts but later admitted that PW-1 and PW-2 were in custody of the child. + PW-5 (Doctor Rishita from DEF Nursing Home) confirmed that on 08/07/23, A gave birth to a healthy child via cesarean delivery. She clarified that C took the child, explaining that the family at home would look after the child. She refuted any misinformation being provided to A regarding the child's whereabouts from the hospital's end. + These testimonies collectively shed light on the circumstances surrounding the child's presence with PW-1 and PW-2, indicating that C had handed over the child to them under false pretenses. The prosecution's case aims to establish C's involvement in the alleged kidnapping and trafficking of the child. Fa Upon due consideration of the charges and the pleas entered by the accused, the court duly noted their assertion of innocence. This plea will be taken intoaccount as the trial progresses, ensuring a fair and impartial examination of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The court shall proceed with the trial in adherence to the principles of justice and the applicable legal framework. EVIDENCE Adduced by Defence During the trial, the Defense Witnesses (DW) provided their testimonies as follows: DW-I (B), the second husband of A, testified that he had married A as her second husband, He claimed that he left her due to her disobedience and her interactions with multiple male acquaintances. DW-2 (X), A's first husband, stated that he had divorced A due to personal compatibility issues between them. DW-3 (Y), the Head Staff Nurse at DEF Nursing Home on the date of the incident, informed the court that following the birth of the child, A was informed about the baby boy. However, she asserted that she had no knowledge regarding the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the child to C. These testimonies offer insights into the relationships and interactions involving A, shedding light on potential factors contributing to the case, The court shall consider these testimonies alongside other evidence presented during the trial to reach a just and impartial decision. ISUE OF THE CASE WHETHER C COMMETED THE CRIME PUNISHIBLE UNDER SECTION 363 AND 370 OF IPC.Despite marital issues between A and her husbands, this does not directly impact the case's outcome unless it's proven that it influenced A's credibility or ‘motives. The defence's argument of C's innocence is weakened by the fact that C took custody of the child without proper consent or authorization, The prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to establish that C took the child from A's custody and directed D and E to keep the child, which aligns with the charges under Sections 363 and 370 IPC. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, it’s likely that the C guilty of the charges under Sections 363 and 370 of the IPC. Verdict Ina community in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, there lived a woman named A. She was married to B, her second husband, in 2019 after her first marriage ended in divorce. During October 2022, A found out she was pregnant with her second husband's child. B had to travel to Chennai for work, leaving A alone at home. During this time, A's distant relative, C, came into her life. Seeing A alone and pregnant, C offered to stay and support her until the baby was born. A, grateful for the help, welcomed C into her home. C accompanied A to her doctor appointments and provided assistance. In July 2023, as A's due date approached, she felt unwell and C rushed her to a nearby hospital, the ABC nursing home. However, they were turned away due to paperwork issues. They then went to the EG nursing home in Jamia Nagar, where A was admitted and underwent surgery the next day due to complications. After the surgery, A asked about her newborn child, but C only showed her some photos, claiming it was a boy. When A pressed for more information, C informed her that the baby had died shortly after birth and had been buried. Distraught, A reported the incident to the authorities, suspecting foul play. An investigation ensued, during which the police found the baby boy at the home of C's relative. Various witnesses, including neighbors and medical staff, provided their testimonies. During the trial, both sides presented their arguments. The prosecution alleged that C had kidnapped the child and engaged in human trafficking. However, thedefense argued that A's troubled relationships and conflicting statements cast doubt on the allegations. Ultimately, the court found it challenging to determine reasonable doubt. Given the complexities and uncertainti case, the court acquitted C of all charges. This story highlights the complexities of human relationships and the challenges of seeking justice in difficult circumstances, JUDGEMENT In considering this case, it's essential to remember the human aspect of the situation, A, the mother, found herself in a vulnerable position while her husband was away for work. C, a distant relative, offered support during her pregnancy, which A gratefully accepted. However, events took a distressing turn when A was led to believe that her newborn child had died after birth, only to later discover discrepancies regarding the child's whereabouts. It's evident from the testimonies that A was misled about what happened to her child. This caused immense emotional turmoil for her. Despite arguments about A's personal history, it's crucial to focus on the specific events surrounding the child's custody. Caring for a newborn is a delicate matter, and any actions taken without the mother's consent can have significant consequences. While there may have been intentions to protect the child, it's imperative to respect the rights and wishes of the mother. In delivering justice, the court acknowledges the complexity of the situation, While recognizing the accused's potential intentions, it cannot overlook the fundamental rights of the mother and child. The sentence handed down reflects both accountability for the accused's actions and the need to ensure the well-being of the child and mother. There for c found guilty of the offence punishable under section 363 and 370 of IPC. And this court awarded C imprisonment of 7 years under section 363 of IPC and in addition to this imprisonment this court further awarded 5 year of imprisonment to C.